Breaking: Finance Committee drops “death panel” provisions from Senate bill

posted at 3:23 pm on August 13, 2009 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised it took them this long. If it had been Palin and the right tossing rhetorical grenades, they might have gone to the mat to keep it in there, but as the ‘Cuda herself noted in her response to Obama last night, it ain’t just conservatives who are freaked out by these provisions. Eugene Robinson and Charles Lane at WaPo also concluded that having “outside” input into end-of-life decisions when the government’s desperate to cut costs could lead to abuse; Mickey Kaus and Camille Paglia have hammered The One about it too. And Obama’s done himself no favors trying to explain what he has in mind, as Tom Maguire reminds us. From an interview in April:

THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

DAVID LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

“Independent” guidance to seniors about death with an eye to reducing the lion’s share of health-care spending. What could go wrong?

Tired of the political migraines it’s getting from this, the Finance Committee finally decides to, er, pull the plug:

“On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. “We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”…

“The bill passed by the House committees is so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, including making taxpayers fund healthcare subsidies for illegal immigrants,” Grassley said. The veteran Iowa lawmaker said the end-of-life provision in those bills would pay physicians to “advise patients about end-of-life care and rate physician quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for end-of-life care.

In theory it could be reintroduced in the conference committee after each chamber passes a bill, but given the outcry over this, why risk an explosion that might queer the whole deal at the 11th hour? This never should have been in the bill in the first place, frankly; the way to encourage living wills (or, say, organ donation) so that people don’t end up undergoing expensive treatments they don’t really want is through a general public education/advertising campaign, not individual meetings with ailing patients terrified that the care they need to stay alive isn’t “cost-effective” in their case. Exit question: This is a win for Palin, but is it also a win for Obama? Now he can reassure Americans that the most worrisome parts of the bill are stripped out.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8

Healthcare costs are ridiculous. If you don’t have a job that pays for your insurance, you’re f’ed in this country. this bill is meant to give those without insurance a viable option.

Tom_Shipley

I don’t have a job that pays for my insurance, yet somehow I’m able to insure myself for $118.00/month. That’s probably less than your cell phone bill.

Yeah, everyone gets healthcare if they need it… PAYING for that care, well, that’s another story. They get the care, but they go bankrupt as a consequence.

Tom_Shipley

Even if true(and it’s not), so what? People go bankrupt for any number of reasons….why is a health care bill different? What’s next, nationalizing the credit card businesses because of all those poor folks who don’t want to pay their credit card bill?

And if Obamacare puts private insurance out of business, it’s because they provide a better service, plain and simple.

Tom_Shipley

Right….that’s exactly why Fedex and UPS can’t compete with the post office when it comes to first class mail too, isn’t it?

Tom Shipley my ass…Tom Stupid is more likely.

Clown boy.

xblade on August 14, 2009 at 4:43 AM

Yes, that’s it. I’m jealous. That’s why I’m not claiming credit for anything at all. It can’t possibly be that I’m pointing out the reality of the situation and refuse to credit a politician for the sun rising today.

amerpundit on August 13, 2009 at 3:59 PM

You sure are an iconoclast.

Jim Treacher on August 14, 2009 at 5:52 AM

It’s a hollow victory. The processes of denying care to the elderly will still be there. People will still die too esrly, they just won’t get counseling on how to do it.

darwin-t on August 14, 2009 at 6:14 AM

Here’s a great example of the Congressman from Thomas Jefferson’s district, Tom Perriello, getting pressed hard about Congress taking the public option.

Watch the “Perriello Pledge”

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 7:40 AM

Death Panel? What death panel? I thought there were no death panel provisions in there. Isn’t that what o said in a press conference? Why would they need to take something out that “apparently” wasn’t even in the bill? Hmmm…. fishy

virginiabelle on August 14, 2009 at 8:27 AM

It’s a victory of sorts, but to what end?

From reliable sources, it was a good idea.

WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. WHEREAS, in Alaska, Alaska Statute 13.52 provides the specifics of the advance directives law and offers a model form for patient use.
WHEREAS, it is estimated that only about 20 percent of people in Alaska have executed an advance directive. Moreover, it is estimated that less than 50 percent of severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive.

WHEREAS, it is likely that a significant reason for these low percentages is that there is both a lack of knowledge and considerable confusion in the public about Advance Directives.

WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.

WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.

WHEREAS, as a result of April 16, 2008, being recognized as Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, more citizens will have conversations about their healthcare decisions; more citizens will execute advance directives to make their wishes known; and fewer families and healthcare providers will have to struggle with making difficult healthcare decisions in the absence of guidance from the patient.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Sarah Palin, Governor of the state of Alaska, do hereby proclaim April 16, 2008, as:

Healthcare Decisions Day in Alaska, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

Dated: April 16, 2008

NextGen on August 14, 2009 at 8:30 AM

American Power tracked-back with, “Ezekiel Emanuel Spared! Senate Finance to Drop ObamaCare Death Panels!”:

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/ezekiel-emanuel-spared-senate-finance.html

Donald Douglas on August 14, 2009 at 8:41 AM

I am coming into the discussion a little late perhaps, my thoughts on this are:

1. TORT Reform!!

2. If the majority are happy with their Healthcare Ins, why not open Medicare/Medicaid to enrollment for those without Ins, and base acceptance on size of family and income.

3. If the new “poor” (According to our CiC) income level is $88,000, for a family of four, I can see no reason why they cannot afford Healthcare Ins.

4. Income levels for acceptance could start at $50,000 for a family of four.

I do absolutely think Tort Reform is necessary.

Oh, Sarah Rocks!!

RoxanneH on August 14, 2009 at 9:08 AM

The clause was reimbursement and unnecessary, so it’s smarter to simply eliminate it. The entire debacle could have been avoided.

BTW, I understand it was actually based on a bill introduced by a Republican from Georgia.

In any case, I couldn’t see why they didn’t just eliminate it. It’s not all that significant.

AnninCA on August 14, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Good Lord. I understand people are happy that this was taken out. But to credit it all to Palin and act as if she’s single-handedly defeated the monster, as if the left now fears her, is just insane.

You have to admit. “Death Panel” came from her lips and everyone ran over to the stupid social network Facebook to read her comments. It’s amazing how much power she has now. She’s a smartbomb and they know it! The fact that Gibbs even mentioned her says she’s a threat. I’m curious as to why the left doesn’t just ignore her?

virginiabelle on August 14, 2009 at 9:18 AM

Over the long run do you all think this type of gamesmanship is net positive or negative? You know that the media will now work in overdrive to “expose” people who have supported these types of provisions before.

Example

You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody’s business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn’t already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that’s not just shameless, it’s stupid.

Yes, that’s right. Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let’s go to the bill text, shall we? “The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary’s need for pain and symptom management, including the individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.” The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

Do you think this does more harm or good in the long run?

NextGen on August 14, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Friends and trolls:

This is no victory. This is low hanging fruit. They put this little cherry out in front of you just to give you something to attack, then they easily backed away from it. Meanwhile, the main effort is marching on your flank. the public/single payor option is out there and will snatch you up. The bill needs to be killed outright or the public option stripped out and voted on its merits.

This omnibus legislation is tactially being used to get the greatest proportion of their priorities advanced at once–he has the votes to do it and a Dem congressman from Iowa today mentions that Obama is willing to become a one termer if this reform passes. So, the prize is not ‘death panels’ it is merely a skirmish and we sniped one round into it. The prize is the whole enchilada, so get out there and resharpen your hatchets, fill your water and check your feet–there’s a few miles to march and some gutcheckin’ to do.

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 9:52 AM

These little victories are handed right to you to give them some breathing room and to make you back off.

Deny it.

ted c on August 14, 2009 at 9:53 AM

The clause was reimbursement and unnecessary, so it’s smarter to simply eliminate it. The entire debacle could have been avoided.

BTW, I mis-understand it was actually based on a bill introduced by a Republican from Georgia.

In any case, I couldn’t see why they didn’t just eliminate it. It’s not all that significant.

AnninCA on August 14, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Debunked earlier. The Republican was actually in the other house of Congress (Don’t remember for sure which way it was, but I think he was a Congressman and the bill being discussed was in the Senate).

cs89 on August 14, 2009 at 9:59 AM

This is from Sarah’s FaceBook Page. Troll’s concerns have been aws.

Troubling Questions Remain About Obama’s Health Care Plan
Yesterday at 10:11pm
I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.

The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back in 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan…. A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3]

A single-payer health care plan might be what Obama would like to see, but is it what the rest of us would like to see? What does a single payer health care plan look like? We need look no further than other countries who have adopted such a plan. The picture isn’t pretty. [4] The only way they can control costs is to ration care. As I noted in my earlier statement quoting Thomas Sowell, government run health care won’t reduce the price of medical care; it will simply refuse to pay the price. The expensive innovative procedures that people from all over the world come to the United States for will not be available under a government plan that seeks to cover everyone by capping costs.

Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill. Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care. Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary.”

In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote:

“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” [5]

I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” [6] The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything. In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public.

Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill. (my emphasis).

There is one aspect of this bill which I have not addressed yet, but it’s a very obvious one. It’s the simple fact that we can’t afford it. But don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He told the Senate Budget Committee last month:

“In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” [7]

Dr. Elmendorf went on to note that this health care legislation would increase spending at an unsustainable rate.

Our nation is already $11.5 trillion in debt. Where will the money come from? Taxes, of course. And will a burdensome new tax help our economy recover? Of course not. The best way to encourage more health care coverage is to foster a strong economy where people can afford to purchase their own coverage if they choose to do so. The current administration’s economic policies have done nothing to help in this regard.

Health care is without a doubt a complex and contentious issue, but health care reform should be a market oriented solution. There are many ways we can reform the system and lower costs without nationalizing it.

The economist Arthur Laffer has taken the lead in pushing for a patient-center health care reform policy. He noted in a Wall Street Journal article earlier this month:

“A patient-centered health-care reform begins with individual ownership of insurance policies and leverages Health Savings Accounts, a low-premium, high-deductible alternative to traditional insurance that includes a tax-advantaged savings account. It allows people to purchase insurance policies across state lines and reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. It reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into a simple voucher for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. And it reduces the cost of medical procedures by reforming tort liability laws.” [8]

Those are real reforms that we can live with and afford. Once again, I warn my fellow Americans that if we go down the path of nationalized health care, there will be no turning back. We must stop and think or we may find ourselves losing even more of our freedoms.

- Sarah Palin

[1] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
[2] See http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/white-house-adviser-backs-off-rationing/
[3]See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hsqzSKuC44
[4] See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjkwNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiOTc=
[5] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html
[6] See http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=1094&type=6
[7] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html
[8] See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574324361508092006.html

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116979483434

Clyde5445 on August 14, 2009 at 10:07 AM

About time they woke and smelled the mob coffee. Next, drop the portion on having government social workers entering peoples homes to tell them how to raise their kids. Check out Chuck Norris’s op-ed

BlueandSong on August 14, 2009 at 10:17 AM

I heard this earlier;
Funny a “dumb hick” in Alaska puts a statement on Facebook and the Senate backs down. Barack can only dream of having that much power.

barnone on August 14, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Sarah!!

In other news, once revered conservative blogger Charles Johnson seen entering and never emerging from dark echo chamber called LGF. Those close to the situation say Charles has sadly become addicted to “circle jerking”, a chronic psychological disorder attributed to an overdeveloped ego.

Laughing Bear on August 14, 2009 at 10:37 AM

Sarah!!!

In other news, once revered conservative blogger Charles Johnson was last seen entering a very dark echo chamber known as LGF. Those close to the situation say Charles has become addicted to the sound of his own voice and has lost the ability to communicate except through the practice of “circle jerking”. Sadly, there are no reports of him leaving the chamber while rumours persist he may be trapped by a neck collar resembling his own anal sphincter.

Laughing Bear on August 14, 2009 at 10:51 AM

What is mu.nu? Ace and mypetjawa also have that domain.

daesleeper on August 13, 2009 at 10:33 PM

You will have to ask our beloved Pixy Misa that question. Suffice it to say that he’s most kickass blog hoster evah.

Physics Geek on August 14, 2009 at 11:40 AM

You will have to ask our beloved Pixy Misa that question. Suffice it to say that he’s most kickass blog hoster evah.

Physics Geek on August 14, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Doesn’t help :(

daesleeper on August 14, 2009 at 12:29 PM

In any case, I couldn’t see why they didn’t just eliminate it. It’s not all that significant.

AnninCA on August 14, 2009 at 9:12 AM

Now to eliminate the entire bill.

darwin on August 14, 2009 at 12:46 PM

I guess I could put it this way. This victory is like running a double reverse, going sideline to side line and picking up no yards. It feels good, the fans cheer but its still 3rd and 10.

The idea of reimbursing for end of life discussion and planning was good, eliminating it does nothing to change the decision making (cost/benefit) dynamic from either gov or private insurance.

NextGen on August 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM

And Sarah closes the deal with today’s comments.

Hopefully, we’ll see a good thread on this.

This is the best conservative discussion I’ve seen to date.

And you all know, I’m for public option.

AnninCA on August 14, 2009 at 1:36 PM

And you all know, I’m for public option Statist control over every aspect of everyon’e life.

AnninCA on August 14, 2009 at 1:36 PM

daesleeper on August 14, 2009 at 1:59 PM

Let’s go to the bill text, shall we? “The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary’s need for pain and symptom management, including the individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.” The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

Do you think this does more harm or good in the long run?

NextGen on August 14, 2009 at 9:50 AM

No, another BIG difference is that 1233 wanted every elderly American told about the beauty of hospice and do-not-resuscitate every five years AND as health changed significantly.
Grandma turns 60, she’s to hear about hospice and DNR.
Grandma does a living will.
When she turns 65, she’s to hear about options she rejected five years ago.
She breaks a toe and goes in for a day, she’s to hear about hospice and DNR.
She gets the flu. She’s to hear about hospice and DNR.

When we mandate counseling on all available options for abortion clinics, it’s banned as chilling interference with a private medical decision. Why impose it on the old at their most vulnerable: EVERY hospitalization? Why?

If you say it wasn’t to promote more old farts to die quietly, then why suggest it?

Chris_Balsz on August 14, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Sarah Cuda Slam dunks in their face.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caNVWoHLejE

jaboba on August 14, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Caribou Barbie will never be president. “Palinistas” are complete morons.

hottieinthehouse on August 14, 2009 at 5:01 PM

This is so stupid, I had to post it again…I think I may post this on every blog where Sarah is mentioned…just to help you out.

right2bright on August 14, 2009 at 5:09 PM

right2bright on August 14, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Whoever said this isn’t a finished issue was right – see Spector’s “tweet:

I will try to persuade Senator Grassley that the availability of counseling is appropriate and should be included in health care reform.
about 1 hour ago from web SenArlenSpecter
Sen. Arlen Specter

Maybe at his age he’s starting to think of that old “end-of-life” issue.

katiejane on August 14, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Do you think this does more harm or good in the long run?

NextGen on August 14, 2009 at 9:50 AM

It does harm when you incentivize/require doctors to perform this activity as agents of the same government which proposes to limit access to healthcare based on age.

Palin’s proclamation, which you also placed into your comments, just tells citizens to consider doing this activity themselves. No government mandate, no legal tying to cost containment.

That’s the difference, and it’s a pretty big one.

unclesmrgol on August 14, 2009 at 7:43 PM

“Exit question: This is a win for Palin, but is it also a win for Obama? Now he can reassure Americans that the most worrisome parts of the bill are stripped out.”

I don’t think so. The reason is this was the provision that would saved the most, since it deals with the largest share of the health care costs. (As Obama himself says, about 80%.) There is now no way this bill can be deficit neutral (not that there was before, but I digress) short of dramatically increasing taxes. I have a feeling a tax increase on the middle class will not reduce the anger or distrust among the electorate. I’m hoping Elmendorf (sp?) will have a field day with the bill now…

drocity on August 14, 2009 at 8:27 PM

We need to focus on the “single payer” aspect of this bill. As long as that is the ultimate goal, the whole bill stinks.

theaddora on August 15, 2009 at 12:12 AM

theaddora:

No, theaddora, we need to kill this bill, elect some conservatives in 2010 and write a bill that

1. Has serious tort reform.

2. Removes the link between health insurance and employment.

3. Allows consumers to choose which features they want in their policy, i.e., prevents states from mandating coverage for all the policies sold in that state.

We’ve got to change course in this country. Half measures have only brought us to where we are now.

JackOkie on August 15, 2009 at 9:12 AM

no. You dont want it at ALL. Once its into law, much like our wiretapping stuff, they will manipulate it once their foot is in the door. BET ON IT.

johnnyU on August 15, 2009 at 11:57 AM

This issue has been so far overplayed it makes me sick. Let’s just make it easy and follow the rule set by Logan’s Run. Over 40, and if you go to the doctor’s office, you don’t come back.

bayam on August 15, 2009 at 6:17 PM

Glen beck interviews Dr. Rand Paul about potential rationing boards based on what is in Britain.

Spathi on August 14, 2009 at 8:26 PM

Hold on, Britain spends 50% less on health care than the US (in terms of % GDP)- and at that lower price point, covers the entire populace. So obviously there’s going to be a difference in quality (although almost all Brits are adamant about the virtues of their system).

See the numbers from the WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html

But no one has talked about reducing our nation’s health bill by 50% (relative to GDP). So you does your point make any sense?

bayam on August 15, 2009 at 6:25 PM

But the bill [H.R. 1 EH AKA "stimulus"] goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

J_Crater on August 15, 2009 at 10:59 PM

45 million uninsured
-
15-20 million illegal aliens
-
end of live decisions taken away from the patient and physician………..priceless……disaster

scruplesrx on August 15, 2009 at 11:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8